1. Evaluation Reporting System
Review the
Evaluation Reporting System
August 2018

2. Concrete Experience http://youtu.be/unmKnS5jPOc
GROUP 1: Identify 5 things that are right with the Army’s evaluation reporting system.
GROUP 2: Identify 5 things that are wrong with the Army’s evaluation reporting system.

3. Learning Objective Action: Review the Evaluation Reporting System
Condition: Senior HR Leaders in a classroom environment working individually and as a member of a small group, using doctrinal and administrative publications, practical exercises, case studies, personal experience, handouts, and discussion with an awareness of the Operational Environment (OE) variables and actors.
Standard:
With a minimum of 70% accuracy, advise personnel on the principles of the ERS, verify rating chain officials and the rating scheme, advise unit personnel on counseling requirements, explain the types of evaluation reports, advise personnel on the Evaluation Report Redress program, compute report periods, and verify required forms

4. Evaluation Reporting System (ERS) Overview
Encompasses the means and methods needed for developing people and leaders.
Identifies Soldiers who are best qualified for promotion and assignment to positions of greater responsibility.
Combines major elements of counseling, assessment, documentation, and integration with other Army, rating officials, and rated Soldiers in their current environments.
AR 623-3, para 1-8

5. ERS Responsibilities Human Resources Command
Acts as lead agency for the Secretary of the Army and is responsible for the effective operation of the ERS.
Clarifies policies, grants exceptions to policies, or formulates new policies, as the need arises.
Commanders (at all levels) will ensure that:
AR is available.
Rating officials are fully qualified.
Reports are prepared by designated rating officials.
Rating chains correspond to the chain of command or supervision, are published, and provided to each Soldier.
Completed evaluation reports are submitted NLT 90 days after the thru date.
AR 623-3, para 1-4

6. ERS Functions
Primary – provide information to HQDA for making personnel management decisions. Components include-
thoughtful, fair, accurate and complete evaluation reports.
indoctrination of Army Leadership Requirements Model and basic Soldier responsibilities.
a “whole file” concept and continuous growth philosophy.
ensuring the selection of the best qualified to serve in positions of increasing responsibility.
Secondary – encourage leader professional development and enhance mission accomplishment through –
stressing importance of senior / subordinate relationships.
increased emphasis on performance counseling.
necessary senior / subordinate communication.
AR 623-3, para 1-8c
AR 623-3, para 1-8c

7. Categories of Evaluations Mandatory and/or Optional Evaluations
Annual Evaluations
Officer Evaluation Reports and NCO Evaluation Reports
School Evaluations Academic Evaluation Reports for both military and civilian institutions
AR 623-3, para 1-8c
AR 623-3, para 1-8a(4)

8. Evaluation Entry System (EES)
EES is the revised web-based tool in development at HRC, which will be used to complete and submit evaluations.
EES will consolidate AKO MyForms wizard, IWRS, excel profile calculators, etc.
Benefits of EES:
Enhanced wizard to guide rating chain and Human Resource professionals in preparing the evaluation
Multi-pane dashboard allows user to view data input and form simultaneously
Built-in tool to view and manage Rater and Senior Rater profiles
Provides quick reference to AR and DA PAM 623-3
Eliminates accessing multiple systems and consolidates evaluation tools to one system
Does not delay evaluation processing due to rater profile “misfires” (automatic downgrade)
Unclassified

9. Evaluation Entry System (EES) Homepage https://evaluations. hrc. army
Shows all active evaluations related to you, as the Rater, Senior Rater, or Delegate.
Shows Rater & Senior Rater Profile; will show Rater Tendency
Allows delegates to view Senior Rater profile (if delegated).
Allows Senior Rater or Rater to add Delegates who can draft, edit, remove signatures, and submit reports on your behalf. Only the designated rating official can sign/authenticate evaluations.
Allows signature removal if correction or amendment is required

10. Army Directive 2013-20 & MILPER Msg 13-306 Substantiated Findings
Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention Program and Evaluations
Zero Tolerance!
Both commissioned and non-commissioned officers must commit themselves to eliminating sexual harassment and sexual assault . They must began fostering climates of dignity and respect within their units.
Army Directive & MILPER Msg
Help eliminate sexual harassment and assault
Officers and NCOs are meeting their commitments and holding them appropriately accountable
Requirements for evaluation reports
Goals and Objectives
Mandatory
Officer Evaluation Report Support Form
NCOER Counseling and Support Form
Initial Counseling for students
Raters Assessment
Fostered a climate of dignity and respect
Identify any significant actions or contributions
Identify failures (on and off duty)
Substantiated Findings
Rater comments on evaluation
Senior Rater comments on evaluation
Academic Evaluation Reports (Military and Civilian)

11. Rules for Designating Rating Chain and Responsibilities
NCOs
Rater (para 2-5)
Senior Rater (para 2-7) Reviewer (para 2-8)
Officers
Rater (para 2-5)
Intermediate (para 2-6)
Senior Rater (para 2-7)
Supplementary Reviewer (para 2-8a and 2-8b)
AR 623-3

12. Rating Chain Responsibilities
Rater
Provide Support Forms, if required
Initial / quarterly counseling
Assess Soldier using all reasonable means
Review Support Form at end of rating period if applicable
Provide an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the rated Soldier’s performance and potential
Senior Rater
Become familiar with Soldier’s performance
Evaluate Soldier from a broad organizational perspective
Only evaluate the rated Soldier’s potential relative to peers
Ensure all reports are complete and realistic
Ensure Soldier electronically signs eval
Intermediate Rater (OERs)
When required to link rater and senior rater (e.g., Physician Assistant, Chaplain)
Assess performance based on personal contact, records, and reports
Render and objective evaluation on both performance and potential
An intermediate rater will not be incorporated within the rating chain as a means to promote pooling
Reviewer
In most instances the senior rater (OER and NCOERs) will perform final rating chain review
Ensure rating chain are correct
Ensure report was reviewed by a 1SG / SGM / CSM (NCOER)
Ensure comments are consistent with counseling, support forms (or equivalent), or other communications

13. Rating Chain Development
Example Rating Chain
Rated Officer
Rater
Intermediate Rater
Senior Rater
LTC Jones
Bn Cdr
COL Reese
Bde Cdr NA
MG Smith
Div CG
CH(CPT) Cox
Bn Chaplain
MAJ Black
Bn XO
CH(MAJ) Ivy
Bde Chaplain
Rated NCO
Supplementary Reviewer (some instances)
CSM Posey
Bn CSM

14. Calculating Unrated Time (1 of 2)
RATED MONTHS DEFINED: The number of rated months is computed by counting the total number of calendar days in the rating period and dividing it by 30.
NOTE:
Do not use the number of days in the entire period covered by the report. The rated months will equal the period covered minus all nonrated time.
After dividing by 30, if there are 15 or more days left, they will be counted as a whole month.
EXAMPLES
Days
130 / 30 = 4 months, 10 days = 4 months
140 / 30 = 4 months, 20 days = 5 months

15. Calculating Unrated Time (2 of 2)

16. Types of Evaluation Reports
Two types:
Mandatory
Optional
Further divided into:
“90-day minimum”
“other than 90-day minimum”
SHOW SLIDE: TYPES OF EVALUATION REPORTS
Learning Step / Activity 4. Identify types of Evaluation Reports
Method of Instruction: Conference / Discussion
Instructor to Student Ratio: 1:16
Time of Instruction: 30 mins
NOTE: Refer students to AR 623-3, paragraph 3-2c, as needed.
There are two types of reports: mandatory and optional. These are further divided into a 90-day minimum rating period and other-than-90-day-minimum requirement. To determine if a Soldier meets the minimum calendar day requirements to receive a report, nonrated periods occurring during the rating period are deducted from the total number of days served in the same position under the same rater.
NOTE: Explain to students that the method to determine rating periods will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent learning activity.
To determine 90-day minimum requirements, nonrated periods are deducted from total number of days in rating period
AR 623-3, Para 3-2c

17. Restrictions Evaluation Parameters (3-16) Comments (3-17)
Prohibited narrative techniques(3-18)
Unproven derogatory information (3-19)
Prohibited comments (3-20)
Comments about marital status and spouse (3-21)
SHOW SLIDE: RESTRICTIONS
There are preparation and processing guidelines and restrictions for evaluation reporting. The perimeters are:
(1) Each report will be an independent evaluation of the rated Soldier for a specific rating period. It will not refer to prior or subsequent reports. It will not remark on performance or incidents occurring before or after the period covered (para 3-20).
(a) For Relief-for-Cause reports have exceptions based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period. Example: A rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period. They may refer to the prior rating period to explain the reasons for relief.
(b) When the most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report. This exception is allowed in order to comply with APFT and height and weight requirements.
(2) Comments will not exceed the space provided on DA Form 67–10 series, DA Form 2166–8, DA Form 1059, or DA Form 1059–1. In preparing their comments, rating officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation to convey a meaningful description of an officer’s performance and potential. In this manner, both Army selection boards and career managers are given the needed information on which to base a decision. (para 3-21).
(3) Prohibited narratives. The following techniques will not be used (para 3-20).
(a) Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite.
(b) Too brief comments. These frequently need to be interpreted by the selection board and the career manager. If not correctly interpreted, the best interests of the Army and the rated soldier are not served. Some examples include, excessive use of technical acronyms or phrases not commonly recognized.
(c) Bullet comments.
(1) Appropriate bullet comments are required for NCOERs. For example, “outstanding physical and mental toughness. “Ranger of the Year” or “performs brilliantly under fire and in the most austere conditions.”
(2) Bullet comments are not acceptable for the OER or AER.
(d) Any technique aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative, including, but not limited to the following:
(1) Underlining.
(2) Excessive use of capital letters.
(3) Unnecessary quotation marks.
(4) Wide spacing between selected words, phrases, bullets or sentences to include double spacing within a Paragraph or between Paragraphs. Senior raters are not authorized any double-spacing between performance and potential comments.
(5) Italics and similar techniques.
(6) Bold or underlined text.
(7) Compressed type face or spacing.
(8) Handwritten comments. An exception is made for DA Form OER, parts IV, block b and part V for evaluations on BGs and on DA Form parts IV, blocks d; IV block e; and VI block c for evaluations on CW5s, which may be handwritten in black ink. In order to be processed and placed on the individual’s AMHRR, reports with handwritten comments must be legible.
(9) Exaggerated margins (“picture framing”). Paragraph indentation (if not excessive) is an acceptable practice if applied as standard convention of English prose (OER only).
(10) Inappropriate references to box checks (OERs). Senior raters may not make references to a profiled box check.
(11) Specific selection board language.
(4) Unproven derogatory information. No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier.
(a) References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting the evaluation to HQDA. If the rated individual is absolved, comments about the incident will not be included in the evaluation.
(b) This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports. It will also prevent unjustly prejudicial information from being permanently included in a Soldier’s AMHRR, such as—
(1 ) Charges that are later dropped.
(2) Charges or incidents of which the rated individual may later be absolved.
(5) Any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation. This is true whether the rated Soldier is under investigation, flagged, or awaiting trial. While the fact that a rated individual is under investigation or trial may not be mentioned in an evaluation until the investigation or trial is completed, this does not preclude the rating chain’s use of verified derogatory information. For example, when an interim report with verified information is made available to a commander, the verified information may be included in an OER, NCOER, or AER. For all reports, if previously reported information later prove to be incorrect or erroneous, the Soldier will be notified and advised of the right to appeal the report in accordance with chapter 6.
(a) Reports will not be delayed to await the outcome of a trial or investigation. Reports will be done when due and contain what information is verified at the time of preparation.
(b) For OER, when previously unverified derogatory information is later verified, an addendum will be prepared in accordance with AR and forwarded to HQDA. Rating officials will initiate such addendum to report verified misdeeds or professional or character deficiencies unknown or unverified when the OER was submitted. The addendum will ensure that the verified information will be recorded in the Soldier’s official records. However, it will not be submitted until completion of the investigation, imposition of punishment or verification of the information.
(6) Prohibited comments. The use of inappropriate or arbitrary remarks or comments that draws attention to differences relating to race, color, religion, gender, age or national origin is prohibited. Subjective evaluation will not reflect a rating official’s personal bias or prejudice (para 3-20).
(a) When non-judicial punishment is given and filed on the restricted fiche or locally under AR 27–10, paragraph 3–37, and AR 600–8–104, rating officials may not comment on the fact that such nonjudicial punishment was given to a rated Soldier. This does not preclude mentioning the rated Soldier’s underlying misconduct that served as the basis for the non-judicial punishment.
(b) No remarks on an evaluation report will be made on performance or incidents occurring before or after the rating period except:
Relief-for-Cause reports based on information pertaining to a previous reporting period. Example: A rating official may relieve a Soldier found to be involved in some illegal activity during a previous reporting period. They may refer to the prior rating period to explain the reasons for relief
The most recent APFT performance or profile data occurred prior to the beginning date of the report. This exception allows the rated individual to comply with APFT and height and weight requirements
(7) Comments about marital status and spouse. Any evaluation comments, favorable or unfavorable, will not be based solely on a rated Soldier’s marital status. For example, statements such as the following will not permitted: “LTC Doe and his wife make a fine command team” or “As a bachelor, MSG Doe can quickly react to this unit’s contingency missions.”
(a) Evaluation comments will not be made about the employment, educational, or volunteer activities of a rated individual’s spouse. For example, statements such as the following will not be permitted: “Mr. Doe’s participation in post activities is limited by civilian employment,” or “Mrs. Doe has made a significant contribution to Soldier morale by caring sponsorship of the hospital volunteer staff.”
(b) There are limited circumstances involving actual and demonstrable effect on the rated individual’s performance or conduct when comments containing reference to a spouse may be made. These comments will be focused on the rated Soldier’s actions, not those of the spouse. For example, statements such as the following will be permitted: “CPT Doe continued outstanding, selfless service, despite his wife’s severe illness,” or “COL Doe’s intemperate public confrontations with his wife were detrimental to his status as an officer.”
(8) Special Interest Items that can be mentioned in a Soldier’s evaluation report, when substantiated by a completed command or other official investigation:
(a) Involvement in a driving under the influence charge.
(b) Physical or mental Incapacitation.
(c) Acts of sexual misconduct, physical, or mental abuse.
(d) Criminal Acts reported in official military or civil authorities.
(e) Behavior that is inconsistent or detrimental to the good order, conduct and discipline.
(f) Adverse equal opportunity investigations.
(g) Acts of reprisal.
(h) Activities or behavior otherwise prohibited by AR 600–20.
Participation in Army Substance Abuse Program (3-24)
Evaluation of adverse action (3-25)
AR 623-3,Section VI

18. Referral Process
(1 of 3)
SR places an “X” in Part II, block d; OER given to rated officer for signature and placement of an “X” indicating whether or not comments will be provided.
Rated officer may refuse to sign referred OER; however, must check “YES” or “NO” comments box.
Rated officer comments must be:
Factual
Concise
Limited to matters directly related to the referred OER
Rated officer’s comments do not constitute an Appeal or request for Commander’s Inquiry – these actions are processed separately.
Part II, Block d
SHOW SLIDE: REFERRAL PROCESS (1 of 3)
Reference: DA PAM 623-3, para 2-28
If an OER is referred, the SR will place an “X” in the appropriate box in part II, block d (or part II, block c for GOR–OERs) on the completed OER (for example, when the senior rater has signed and dated the completed OER).
The OER will then be given to the rated officer for signature and placement of an “X” in the appropriate box in part II, block d.
While the rated officer may refuse to sign a referred OER, the rated officer must check either the “YES” or “NO” box to indicate whether or not comments will be provided.
Rated officer may comment if he or she believes that the rating and/or remarks are incorrect. The comments must be factual, concise, and limited to matters directly related to the evaluation rendered on the OER; rating officials may not rebut rated officer’s referral comments.
Enclosures that contain voluminous material or items already contained within the officer’s file are not normally in the rated officer’s best interest and should be avoided.
Any enclosures to rebuttal comments will be withdrawn and returned to the rated officer when the OER is forwarded to HQDA.
The rated officer’s comments do not constitute an Appeal or a request for Commander's Inquiry - these actions are processed separately (Chapter 6 and Chapter 4, AR 623-3).

19. Noncommissioned
Officer
Evaluation Reports

20. NCOER Support Forms NCO Support Form DA Form 2166-9-1A
Mandatory for CPL – CSM
Initiate and complete in the Evaluation Entry System (EES)
Used by Rater to prepare for, conduct, and record results of performance counseling
Emphasize development and improvement
Nested with the current leadership doctrine (ADRP 6-22)
DA Pam 623-3, para 3-1

21. Support Form Communication Process
Initial counseling/discussion and follow-up face-to-face:
Initial counseling/discussion assists in developing duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives.
Follow-up counseling enhances mission related planning, assessment, and performance development.
Follow-up counseling sessions conducted:
Active Army NCOs – Quarterly
ARNG and USAR NCOs – Semi-annually
Active Army CPT / LT / CW2 / WO1 – Quarterly
ARNG and USAR CPT / LT / CW2 /WO1 – Quarterly
Field Grades and above – determined by rating officials
Field Grade ARNG officers – Semi-annually
SHOW SLIDE: COUNSELING REQUIREMENTS / SUPPORT FORM COMMUNICATION PROCESS
NOTE: Refer students to AR 623-3, para 3-4,
The communication process is characterized by initial and follow-up face-to-face counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier throughout the rating period. This process used for NCOs is DA Form A.
The initial face-to-face counseling/discussion assists in developing the elements of the rated individual’s duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives. The follow-up counseling enhances mission-related planning, assessment, and performance development.
Through the communication process, rated individuals are made aware of the specifics of their duties and may influence the decision on what is to be accomplished. Thus the rated Soldier is better able to:
(1) Direct and develop their subordinates.
(2) Plan for accomplishing the mission.
Gain valuable information about the organization
Find better ways to accomplish the mission.
IAW AR 623-3, 3-6a(1)a- Officers draft their DA Form A, within the first 30 days of the rating period, using the rater or senior rater DA Forms A as input for goals and objectives. Submitting written performance objectives for approval must be followed up by a face-to-face counseling or an alternative follow-up discussion.

22. NCOER Support Form – Page 1
Up to 7 lines of text
Up to 2 lines of text
Up to 16 lines of text
Part I – SSD and NCOES requirement met for next grade
Part II – Senior Rater annotates counseling dates
Part II – Supplementary Reviewer, if required
Part IV – Rated NCO provides goals and expectations
SHOW SLIDE: NCOER Support Form – Page 1
The next couple of slides are snapshots of the NCOER Support Form and the three grade-plate NCOERs.
The support form includes the following new features:
Structured Self-Development (SSD) and Military Education Level (MEL) codes will auto-populate on the support form. This will serve two purposes. First, if the information is inaccurate, the rated NCO will need to contact their HR office or HRC to get it updated. Second, the rating chain will be able to mentor and counsel the rated NCO and track his/her progress in attaining promotion eligibility for the next grade (in the case of Sergeants Major, eligibility for joint and/or nominative assignments).
The rated NCO will list their goals and expectations in Part IV. This will place more onus or responsibility on the rated NCO to perform throughout the rating period and provide the rating officials with additional information to consider when evaluating overall performance and potential.
Another key change is that there is now a senior rater comments section. Senior raters should counsel the rated NCO twice at least twice during the rating period. This will complement the rater’s initial and quarterly counseling sessions. Also, with the implementation of a senior rater profile, it becomes more critical for the senior rater to provide counsel and mentorship to the rated NCO.
NEXT SLIDE

23. NCOER Counseling Support Form Page 2
Up to 8 lines of text for each field
Part V – Attributes and Competencies (ADP 6-22)
CHARACTER: Rater assesses the rated NCO’s performance in fostering a climate of dignity and respect and adhering to the requirements of the SHARP Program.
Part VI – Senior Rater provides comments
SHOW SLIDE: NCOER Counseling Support Form
The NCOER Support Form will align with leadership doctrine. Based on the attributes and competencies of ADP 6-22, the rater will discuss and establish major performance objectives in Part V.
The senior rater should provide comments as discussed in the two counseling sessions.
NEXT SLIDE

24. Senior Rater Profile Calculation
Type of Report
THRU Date
Box Check
“Most Qualified”
“Highly Qualified”
“Qualified”
“Not Qualified”
Profile MQ HQ Q NQ
Total
Date
of Receipt
SR Profile
Annual X 1
100%
CoR 2
50% 3
33.3% 4
25% 5
20% 6
16.7% 7
14.3%
Ext Annual 8
12.5% 9
22.2% 10
20.0%
Based on the profile limitation of 24%, a senior rater can render a “MOST QUALIFIED” assessment for a particular grade (SSG through CSM/SGM) as follows:
Any one of the first four reports
The second “MOST QUALIFIED” assessment no earlier than the ninth report (2 / 9 = 22.2%)
The third “MOST QUALIFIED” assessment no earlier than the thirteenth report (3 / 13 = 23.1%)
The fourth “MOST QUALIFIED” assessment no earlier than the seventeenth report (4 / 17 = 23.5%)

25. Senior Rater Grade Requirements

26. Evaluation Narrative
Selection boards should understand what input the Rating Chain is providing without having to guess
Raters – focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance
Senior Raters
Amplify potential box checks by using the narrative to capture the rating official’s passion (or lack thereof) for the Rated NCO
Reserve exclusive and strong narratives for the very best NCOs
Focus on the next 3-5 years (assignment, schooling, and promotion)
“HIGHLY QUALIFIED” box checks will be the norm
Assessment of Overall Potential
Most Qualified: Strong potential for selection in the secondary zone; potential ahead of peers
Highly Qualified: Strong potential for promotion with peers
Qualified: Capable of success at the next level; promote if able
Not Qualified: Not recommended for promotion; consider for separation

27. Bullet comments for all grade plates except Strategic Report (CSM/SGM)
DA Form Front Page
Administrative data is the same for all reports
Supplementary Reviewer required when the Senior Rater is a 1LT and below and in certain situations
Part II, block d2 – Rated NCO’s signature verifies seeing the report and the accuracy of administrative data in Part I, rating chain and counseling dates in Part II, duty description in Part III, and APFT and HT/WT data in Part IV
Part IV
Bullet comments for Direct- and Organizational-level reports
Narrative comments for Strategic-level report
Up to 7 lines of text
Up to 5 lines of text
Bullet comments for all grade plates except Strategic Report (CSM/SGM)

28. Direct-level Report (SGT) – Page 2
Focuses on proficiency and is developmental in nature; aligns with Army Leadership Doctrine
Assessment based on 2-box scale
MET STANDARD
DID NOT MEET STANDARD
Rater – bullet format
Unconstrained Senior Rater box check
Senior Rater – narrative format
Up to eight (8) lines of text (bullet format) for each field in Part IV, blocks c through h
Up to five (5) lines of text (bullet format)
Up to 5 lines of narrative text

29. Organizational-level (SSG-1SG/MSG) – Page 210
Up to eight (8) lines of text (bullet format) for each field in Part IV, blocks c through h
Up to five (5) lines of text (bullet format)
Up to 5 lines of narrative text
Focuses on organizational systems and processes; aligns with Army Leadership Doctrine
Rater – bullet format
Senior Rater – Narrative format
Assessment based on 4-box scale
FAR EXCEEDED STANDARD
EXCEEDED STANDARD
MET STANDARD
DID NOT MEET STANDARD
Unconstrained Rater Tendency
Constrained Senior Rater Profile (limited to 24% for “Most Qualified” selection); no credit applied

30. Strategic-level (CSM/SGM) – Page 2
Up to 5 lines of narrative text
Up to 4 lines of narrative text
Focuses on large organizations and strategic initiatives; aligns with Army Leadership Doctrine
Rater and Senior Rater – narrative format
Rater Overall Performance is not limited
Unconstrained Rater Tendency
Senior Rater Profile (limited to 24% for "MOST QUALIFIED" selection); no credit applied
“Silver Bullet” – only one of the first four reports may be “MOST QUALIFED”

31. Exceeds Standards (applies to Organizational and Strategic-level NCOERs)
EXCEEDED STANDARD
Rated NCO performs above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; this NCO and his/her Soldiers often take disciplined initiative in applying leader competencies and attributes; results have an immediate impact on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; this level of performance is not common, typically demonstrated by the upper third of NCOs of the same grade.
mentored two squad members to be inducted into the Sergeant Audie Murphy Club
graduated from M1A2/MGS/Bradley Master Gunner’s Course
scored 2+/2+ on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT); surpassed Army standard in a Category IV language
recognized with the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for volunteering over 100 hours with local community
selected over eight seniors and 15 peers by the Deputy Commanding General to serve as Master Driver

32. Far Exceeded Standards (applies to Organizational and Strategic-level NCOERs)
Rated NCO performs extraordinarily above the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; leadership enables Soldiers and unit to far surpass required organizational and Army standards; demonstrated performance epitomizes excellence in all aspects; this NCO and his/her Soldiers consistently take disciplined initiative in applying leader competencies and attributes; results have an immediate impact and enduring effect on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; demonstrated by the best of the upper third of NCOs of the same grade.
placed 1st of 23 teams in the recent LTG David E. Grange Jr. Best Ranger Competition
nominated and selected over 11 senior NCOs to serve as the Army Corrections Command Operations Sergeant
selected as the Secretary of the Army Career Counselor of the Year; incomparable retention knowledge
expertly led his/her SGLs to earn an Institute of Excellence rating within eight months of arrival
selected by Corps/Division G-1 as the best Brigade S-1 within area of responsibility 10

33. Met Standard (applies to all Grade Plate NCOERs)
Rated NCO successfully achieves and maintains the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; effectively meets and enforces the standard for the unit and those in his/her charge; succeeds by taking appropriate initiative in applying the leader competencies and attributes; results have a positive impact on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army; this level of performance is considered normal and typically demonstrated by a majority of NCOs of the same grade.
established a workplace environment and overall command climate that fostered dignity and respect for all team members
scored 263 on last APFT helping company to achieve a 250 average
assisted in the weapons qualification of 200 Soldiers throughout the battalion
developed a strong priority work plan and anticipated constant change; successfully completed all missions
developed several SOPs that were effectively used by Soldiers for accomplishment of daily missions

34. Did Not Meet Standard (applies to all Grade Plate NCOERs)
Rated NCO fails to meet or maintain the required Army standards and organizational goals of leader competencies and attributes; does not enforce or meet the standard for the unit or those in his/her charge; exhibits/displays minimal or no effort; actions often have a negative effect on the mission, their Soldiers, the unit, and the Army.
failed to consistently adhere to rules, regulations, or standard operating procedures
demonstrated no concern for security and accountability of sensitive items
displayed meager enthusiasm and optimism; his/her actions discouraged others to develop and reach their full potential
failed to maintain accountability of Soldiers under his supervision; fabricated status reports
declined to address subordinate’s request for assistance with personal issues

35. Rater Tendency Label (applies to SSG-CSM/SGM)2 3 6
1 Total Ratings: 12
Note: This is the Rater’s “capstone” assessment of performance and opportunity to “stratify / quantify.”
Rater Tendency Label – the value below each box equals the overall history of those ratings in this grade and the rated NCO’s overall performance compared to NCOs in same grade SSG-CSM/SGM.
Rater Tendency (i.e., rating history) will be imprinted on the NCOER and viewable within the Evaluation Entry System (EES) by the Rater’s Rater and Senior Rater.
Emphasizes the following:
Importance of the Rater’s role and responsibility to provide credible information to HQDA
Importance of a Rater’s sequencing of NCOER submissions to avoid inflation
Provides information to HQDA Selection Boards and Army Leadership on the Rater’s rating tendency
Continues without interruption as the Rater moves from unit to unit, position to position, regardless of promotion.

36. Senior Rater Assessment (SSG-CSM/SGM)
Most Qualified: Definitely select for higher levels of responsibilities (24%)
Highly Qualified: Possesses the ability to perform at the next level of responsibility
Qualified: Retain at current level
Not Qualified: Needs improvement
Limited to 24%
Senior Rater’s assessment of rated NCO’s overall potential compared to NCOs in same grade
Profile limited to 24%
Only one of the first four NCOERs may be rated as Most Qualified (“Silver bullet”)
Narrative comment format

37. Immature Profile / Small Population
(5 or less)
HQDA COMPARISON OF THE SENIOR RATER’S PROFILE AT THE TIME THIS REPORT PROCESSED
HIGHLY QUALIFIED
RNCO: SMITH, BOB
SR: DODD, JANE
DATE:
TOTAL RATINGS: 3
RATINGS THIS NCO: 1
Small Population
(3 or less)
Future Guidance to DA Centralized Selection Boards for the New NCOER
Check DA Label: “Total Ratings” (5 or less = immature profile)
Check Part Va – same grade in population (3 or less = small population)
Expect “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” assessment if immature profile and/or small population exists
Focus on Senior Rater’s narrative

38. Officer
Evaluation Reports

39. Support Form Communication Process
Initial counseling/discussion and follow-up face-to-face:
Initial counseling/discussion assists in developing duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives.
Follow-up counseling enhances mission related planning, assessment, and performance development.
Follow-up counseling sessions conducted:
Active Army CPT / LT / CW2 / WO1 – Quarterly
ARNG and USAR CPT / LT / CW2 /WO1 – Quarterly
Field Grades and above – determined by rating officials
Field Grade ARNG officers – Semi-annually
SHOW SLIDE: COUNSELING REQUIREMENTS / SUPPORT FORM COMMUNICATION PROCESS
NOTE: Refer students to AR 623-3, para 3-4,
Through the communication process, rated individuals are made aware of the specifics of their duties and may influence the decision on what is to be accomplished. Thus the rated Soldier is better able to:
(1) Direct and develop their subordinates.
(2) Plan for accomplishing the mission.
Gain valuable information about the organization
Find better ways to accomplish the mission.
IAW AR 623-3, 3-6a(1)a- Officers draft their DA Form A, within the first 30 days of the rating period, using the rater or senior rater DA Forms A as input for goals and objectives. Submitting written performance objectives for approval must be followed up by a face-to-face counseling or an alternative follow-up discussion.

40. OER Support Form
Officer Support Form
Use of DA Form A is mandatory for COLs and below
Initiate and complete in the Evaluation Entry System (EES)
Data transferable between the support and evaluation forms within EES
Facilitates the rater’s ability to easily complete future OERs
Performance based counseling tool
Ties performance objectives to measureable accomplishments
Nested with the current leadership doctrine (ADRP 6-22)
DA Pam 623-3, para 2-1

41. OER Support Form - Page 1 Part I – Rated Officer Admin Data
Part II – Rating Chain
Part III – Counseling
Part IV – Duty Title / Responsibilities
Part V – Objectives / Accomplishments
SHOW SLIDE: OER SUPPORT FORM - PAGE 1
NOTE: Review with students and facilitate discussion on Parts I thru V of the OER Support Form, as needed.

42. Support Form (Back)
Nested with the current leadership doctrine (ADP 6-22).
Pages 3-5 of the form contain instructions to assist.
Objectives / contributions.
Continued linked to Attributes and Competencies.
APFT Goals.
SHOW SLIDE: SUPPORT FORM (BACK)
NOTE: Review with students and facilitate discussion on the various sections of Part V of the OER Support Form, as needed.
Character
Presence
Intellect
Leads
Develops
Achieves

43. Unmasking of OERs
Elimination of the masking process supports transparency.
Improves the accuracy of an officer’s file in the personnel management decisions for the individual officer and the Army.
Boards are now best qualified vs. fully qualified – ensures the Army retain and promote best qualified.
SHOW SLIDE : UNMASKING OF OERS
Per Army Directive and Milper (Unmasking of Army Evaluation Reports), effective immediately U.S. Army Human Resources Command will stop masking OERs and will move previously masked OERs to the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resource Records (AMHRR) file for all Army components.
All OERs, including previously masked OERs will be placed in the performance section of the official Army Military Human Resource Records file.

44. Evaluation Redress Program
Both preventive and corrective in nature.
Protects the Army’s interests and ensures fairness to the rated Soldier.
First program element is the communication process; second element is the various regulatory requirements
Commander’s Inquiry
Provide command involvement in preventing obvious evaluation injustices and in correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record.
Not a prerequisite for submission of an appeal.
Not used to document differences of opinion amongst rating officials.
Commanders will not pressure/force raters to change their evaluation
Appeals Process
Soldier or another party can file an appeal of an evaluation report that he or she feels is unjust
Results of a Commander’s Inquiry does not constitute an appeal -- they may be used to support it
Substantiating evidence must support an appeal
Appeals based solely on the lack of counseling will not normally serve as a basis to invalidate a report
Two types:
Administrative (no time limit)
Substantive (3 year limit)
SHOW SLIDE: EVALUATION REDRESS PROGRAM
The Evaluation Redress Program consists of several elements at various levels of command (e.g., field, AHRC, Army G–1, and HQDA). The program is both preventative and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent, and provide a remedy for, alleged evaluation injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred.
The first program element is the communication process fostered by DA Form 2166–9–1A, which affords the rated NCO a forum for establishing duty requirements and a discussion of actual accomplishments.
A second element is the various regulatory requirements, such as each report standing on its own without reference to facts or events occurring prior or subsequent to the rated period (para 3–20); the prohibition against command influence on rating officials during the preparation of reports.
The Evaluation Redress Program includes (in this order):
The Commander’s or Commandant’s Inquiry
The Appeals System
(3) Army Board of Correction of Military Records
Army Board of Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)
Highest level of administrative review within HQDA with the mission to correct errors in or remove injustices from Army military records

45. Special Branch Rating Chain Requirements
JAG Officers (AR 623-3, Appendix D)
JAGC officers assigned to BCTs will have a rating chain that is in accordance with paragraph 2–3 and will normally be considered as serving under “dual” supervision; therefore, paragraph 2–21 applies.
BDE JAs will, whenever possible, be rated by their local SJA and senior rated by the BCT CDR.
Trial counsel officers will normally be rated by the BDE judge advocate, intermediate rated by the BCT executive officer, and senior rated by the SJA.
Chaplains (AR 623-3, Appendix C)
There will be a supervisory chaplain in the rating chain when possible. For example, a BDE chaplain, as the supervisory chaplain, will be the intermediate rater for a BN chaplain.
In the absence of a supervisory chaplain, a senior chaplain familiar with the rated chaplain’s performance will be designated as the intermediate rater if qualifications are met (see para 2–6 for intermediate rater qualifications).
SHOW SLIDE: SPECIAL BRANCH RATING CHAIN REQUIREMENTS
Reference AR 623-3, Appendix C (Chaplains) and Appendix D (JAGC Officers) for these Special Branch officers.

46. Company Grade Form Page 1
Administrative data remains consistent with the legacy OER (67-9).
Highlights the need for a supplementary reviewer is required by updated AR / DA PAM
Addresses the completion of the multi-source assessment feedback.
Rater’s comments pertaining to APFT move to Page 1.
Performance block checks and the Rater’s overall performance assessment.
SHOW SLIDE: COMPANY GRADE FORM PAGE 1
Here is an example of what the front side of the Company Grade form looks like. I show you for frame of reference; I will enlarge portions of the form on subsequent slides for discussion.
The Company Grade Evaluation will be used for 2LTs through CPT and WO1s through CW2.
Note that the top half closely resembles the previous evaluation with the exception of a 360 MSAF date box which will replace the mandatory Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback (MSAF) statement required on the previous OER form.
Just below the duty description is a new APFT field. Raters now have the option to comments APFT if desired. Mandatory comments will be required for failures, profiles which preclude an officer from performing his/her duties, and failing to meet height/weight standards, etc.
The rater will indicate the number of officers he or she rates at that current grade and whether or not the OER Support Form was submitted to the rater.
Below the APFT section is where the Rater will indicate his/her assessment based on duty performance against the Army officer peers that a Rater rates. You will notice that the names of the boxes have changed to “EXCELS,” “Proficient,” “Capable,” and “Unsatisfactory. Raters will be limited and not be able to give more than 49% in the “EXCELS”.
The Rater’s comment block will allow for up to “four” lines of narrative text as it pertains to “PERFORMANCE” only.
Up to 4 lines of text

47. Rater Assessment Company Grade Form Page 2
Focused on Attributes and Competencies (ADRP 6-22)
More prescriptive
Performance based assessment
Mandatory entry for each Attribute/Competency
Encourages specific discussion with Rated Officer on desired traits
Comments on performance – not potential
Intermediate Rater if applicable
Senior Rater block checks redefined to better identify leader potential
Most Qualified
Highly Qualified
Qualified
Not Qualified
Up to 4 lines of text
Up to 5 lines of text
SHOW SLIDE: RATER ASSESSMENT COMPANY GRADE FORM PAGE 2
Page 2 of the Company Grade form is broken down into 6 different areas where the Rater will write up to “four” lines of narrative for the leadership attributes and competencies which align with the Support Form and ARDP 6-22 (Army Leadership) doctrine.
The Intermediate Rater comments block will only be utilized for special branches that require dual supervision/advisory such as Chaplains and JAG officers etc. Intermediate Raters may enter up to “five” lines of narrative comments where they will address both “Performance” and “Potential.”
The Senior Rater box checks will still have 4 box checks, though the names of the boxes have changed. The previous “Above Center of Mass” is now the “MOST QUALIFIED” which is still limited to LESS than 50%. The previous “Center of Mass” is now “Highly Qualified.” “Qualified” does not refer the report. Highly qualified is not constrained and it is important to note that “Qualified” is not adverse.
The Senior Rater comments box looks similar but will be limited to “five” lines of narrative and the Senior Rater will only comment on “Potential.”
The future assignments field at the bottom of the form has changed. The SR Rater must now list three “future successive” assignments looking 3-5 years out.
Up to 5 lines of text

48. Field Grade Form Page 1
Administrative data remains consistent with the CO Grade evaluation.
Raters have the opportunity to comment on possible broadening and operational assignments.
Attribute of Character is highlighted on the Field Grade Form.
SHOW SLIDE: FIELD GRADE FORM PAGE 1
This slide shows page 1 of the Field Grade form.
The administrative data in the top third of the form is the same as the Company Grade Report.
There are two new assignments fields at the bottom of the page. The first is where the Rater can indicate up to three “Broadening” assignments best suited for the rated officer. The second is where the Rater may list the 3 “Operational” assignments where the rated officer is best suited for. Ideally think 3-5 years out.
The last field at the bottom of the form is where the Rater will write up to 4 lines of narrative text commenting on Character. 48

49. Rater Assessment: Field Grade Form Page 2
Up to 5 lines of text
Up to 4 lines of text
Rater comments on the Officer’s performance against the Attributes and Competencies during the rating period
Box checking philosophy remain consistent; less than 50% EXCELS
Rater’s overall performance is further codified in the Comments section
No comments on potential
SHOW SLIDE: RATER ASSESSMENT: FIELD GRADE FROM PAGE 2
Raters will have up to 5 lines of narrative text which demonstrate “Performance” regarding Field Grade attributes and competencies as it relates to the Rated Officer’s duty description. (NOTE: Raters will not mention potential)
The Rater will indicate how many Army Officer he/she “currently” rates and indicate whether an OER Support Form was submitted to the Rater. The Rater will check the appropriate box based on overall performance based on all of the officers in that specific grade that he or she has rated.
The Rater’s “EXCELS” box check is the only constrained box. It is limited to 49% or less.
Just below the Rater’s overall performance box check, the Rater has up to 4 lines of narrative text to comment on the Rated Officer’s overall performance as compared to everyone of that grade the rater has rated to date.
Intermediate Raters will only be used for Special Branches and some Joint situations. They will have 5 lines of narrative text where they will comment on both performance and potential.
The Senior Rater portion is the same as on the Company Grade form. The Senior Rater will have up to 5 lines to comment on “potential” only, then list the 3 future successive assignments the officer is best suited for, looking 3-5 years out.

50. Rater Recommended Assignments
(Field Grade and Strategic Level)
Field Grade Plate- Rater Recommended
Strategic Grade Plate- Rater Recommended
SHOW SLIDE: RATER RECOMMENDED ASSIGNMENTS
This slide shows close up portions of the Field Grade and Strategic grade reports where Raters MAY recommend potential “Broadening,” “Operational”, and “Strategic” assignments looking 3-5 years out.
This data will assist Assignment and Career Managers in selecting the right officer for the right assignment.
Unclassified

51. Strategic Report (COL) Page 1
Admin data mirrors Company and Field Grade forms.
Raters will recommend future strategic assignments to assist talent managers in placing the Rated Officer into their next duty assignment.
SHOW SLIDE: STRATEGIC REPORT (COL) PAGE 1
The front page of the Strategic Grade Colonel report mirrors the field grade report with one exception. Instead of recommending “Broadening” and “Operational” assignments, on the COL report Raters “may” provide up to 3 “Strategic” level assignments best suited for that officer.
Raters will have up to 4 lines of narrative text to comment on character.

52. Strategic Report (COL) Page 2
Cumulative percentage must remain below 50%
Up to 5 lines of text
Rater’s of COLs will comment on the Officer’s potential.
Senior Rater box check labels change from Company and Field Grade Officer forms.
SHOW SLIDE: STRATEGIC REPORT (COL) PAGE 2
Because the math will change, Senior Raters of Colonels, had their COL profile restarted on 1 Apr 14 for reports rendered using the They were given a credit of 5 in “Retain as Colonels” which will allow immediate recognition of top performers.
Unlike the Field Grade report, Raters of Colonels will have 5 lines of narrative to comment on Performance and an additional 5 lines of narrative to comment on Potential.
The names of the box checks in the Senior Rater section have changed to better stratify top performers. There is a “Multi-Star” and “Promote to BG” block. Both are equivalent to the previous “Above Center of Mass.” The Multi-star potential block is limited to not more than 24%. The cumulative percentage of both Multi-star and Promote to BG cannot exceed 49%. (NOTE: A Senior rater can elect NOT to give any multi-star blocks and issue up to 49% for the Promote to BG block).
There is a 3rd box, “Retain as Colonel” which is equivalent to a Center of Mass.

53. Strategic Grade Plate General Officer Evaluation Report
1-Page OER for BGs.
Rater and Senior Rater both comment on character and potential.
No rater and senior rater box check.
Processes thru HRC to Officer’s Army Military Human Resource Record.
SHOW SLIDE: STRATEGIC REPORT (BG) REPORT
This slide shows an example of the Brigadier General evaluation report. It is a one page evaluation report.
Raters and Senior Raters will comment on both “Character” and “Potential.”
Like the other three evaluation reports, this evaluation report will also be processed through HRC and ultimately to the Officer’s AMHRR.

54. OER Rater Profile
Maintain less than 50% of reports written by grade in the “EXCELS” box (for Raters of LTCs and below)
Flexibility - Raters have a “credit” of 3 in the “Proficient” box to start profile
OER profiles calculated based on date Rater “Locks” the profile
May not Lock profile earlier than 14 days prior to report THRU Date
OERs are due at HRC within 90 days after the thru date of evaluation
Senior Rater sequencing does not interfere with the Rater’s Locked profile
Maintain a working copy of your rater profile and monitor for accuracy
Profile calculators will be provided in EES for raters to use, which will assist with profile management
SHOW SLIDE: RATER PROFILE
This slide covers some of the basic fundamentals of the Rater Managed Profile Technique.
Raters of LTCs and below will now be accountable and limited to the number of “EXCELS” block he/she can give. Raters must ensure that of the OERs submitted that he/she remains awards less than 50% of all OERs, by grade, as a top box EXCELS selection.
Raters will receive a credit of 3 in the “Proficient” box which will allow a Rater the flexibility to render an “EXCELS” for not more than “two” of the first 3 reports. (Note: If a Rater submits 1 “EXCELS” then the math is 1 EXCELS combined with credit of 3 proficient which makes 1 “EXCELS” of 4 combined reports which equals 25% total for EXCELS – when a Rater submits 2 EXCELS combined with credit of 3 proficient’s, then the profile is 2 “EXCELS” of 5 reports which equals 40% EXCELS (which is less than 50% and within tolerance.)
Profiles are calculated upon receipt at HQDA.
Evaluations are still due to HRC NLT 90 days after thru date on the evaluation.
Raters will have to manage a profile which is a Dash 2 (-2) and monitor it for accuracy. Leaders must share experiences on profile management with junior officers.
The new Evaluation Entry System (EES) will have built in profile calculators to assist raters. It is extremely important to note that evaluations that are mailed in must be accounted for by rater until they have been received at HRC and calculated into an individual’s profile numbers. The Entry Evaluation System will prevent an individual from breaking their profile; however, it is only as accurate as what it can see. Remember, mailing an evaluation is like writing a check. Your bank does not know you have written a check until it arrives and gets deducted.

55. OER Rater Managed Profile Labeling Rules
Rule #1: If the Rater checks “Proficient” box, then the report is always labeled “Proficient”
Rule #2: If the Rater checks “Capable” or “Unsatisfactory” box, then the report is always respectively labeled “Capable” or “Unsatisfactory”
The sum of “Proficient,” “Capable,” and “Unsatisfactory” box checks should always be greater than 50% of total ratings
Rule #3: If the Rater checks “EXCELS” box and rater’s profile is less than 50%, then the report is labeled “EXCELS”
An entry of “EXCELS” will only be accepted if the mathematical result of the entry is less than 50% of the total number of reports rendered in that grade.
SHOW SLIDE: RATER MANAGED PROFILE LABELING RULES
Shown on the slide are the four rules involved with a managed profile technique for those receiving a box check.
Rule #1: If the Proficient box is checked, a HQDA electronically generated Proficient label will be applied to the report, regardless of the senior rater’s profile.
Rule #2: If Capable box or Unsatisfactory box is checked, a HQDA electronically generated Capable label or Unsatisfactory label will be applied to the report, regardless of the senior rater’s profile.
NOTE: Tell the students that the Proficient, Capable, and Unsatisfactory are added together when determining the next two rules - those for EXCELS boxes.
Rule #3: If the Rater checks “EXCELS” box and rater’s profile is less than 50%, then the report is labeled “EXCELS”
An entry of “EXCELS” will only be accepted if the mathematical result of the entry is less than 50% of the total number of reports rendered in that grade.
Rule #4: MISFIRE – “If the Rater checks the “EXCELS” box and rater’s profile is equal to or greater than 50%, then the report is labeled “Proficient" and the rater is charged with EXCELS. EES will not allow Misfires online.
Rule #4: MISFIRE – “If the Rater checks the “EXCELS” box and rater’s profile is equal to or greater than 50%, then the report is labeled “Proficient" and the rater is charged with EXCELS. EES will not allow Misfires online.

56. Example Rater Profile Calculator/Tracker
Will be available thru Evaluation Entry System Website
SHOW SLIDE: RATER PROFILE CALCULATOR/TRACKER
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATER PROFILE MANAGEMENT CALCULATOR  
This worksheet is designed to assist raters in keeping track of ratings rendered under the Officer Evaluation Entry System using DA Form This unofficial worksheet should mirror information found on the profile report. It is available thru Evaluation Entry System Website
Raters must maintain a separate worksheet for each rank, for the ranks of WO1, CW2, CW3, CW4, 2LT, 1LT, CPT, MAJ, and LTC. The rater will have one combined profile for each component: Active, USAR, and ARNG are not separate. Promotable officers serving in positions authorized at the promotable grade are profiled at the higher grade by entering a rank with (P) in Part Ic on the OER.
This is an unofficial worksheet, which may be modified to meet individual needs. Instructions for columns on the worksheet follow:
1. On the correct rank TAB at bottom of sheet, enter the Ratee’s Name, Type, and Date of Evaluation.
2. Enter a one in the corresponding Box Checks (grey box) column. You see a credit of 3 in Proficient Box to allow Raters some flexibility on issuing EXCELS for initial reports.
3. Annotate the box check the Rater made on the OER in the Profile (green box) column by adding a “1” to the respective box and carry the balances down from above. For computing and profiling purposes Proficient, Capable, and Unsatisfactory box checks are totaled, then the number of EXCELS issued is divided by the total number of reports completed to get % EXCELS (must remain under 50%). The total column (in yellow) calculates the total number of Evals completed for that rank. Information should be verified with HRC (by reviewing EES periodically).
4. Enter date due to HRC (forecast 90 days after thru date of evaluation)
5. Enter the actual date completed at HRC (verify in EES).
6. Total EXCELS % calculates number of EXCELS at far right of the sheet (tan), which must maintain less than 50%.
POC: OER Profile Policy questions. Evaluation Systems Office, USA HRC, (502) (DSN: 983),

57. Senior Rater Profile Calculator
WO1-LTC RATER PROFILE MANAGEMENT CALCULATOR
SHOW SLIDE: W01-LTC RATER PROFILE MANAGEMENT CALCULATOR
Instructions for Rater Profile Management Calculator 
This worksheet is designed to assist raters in keeping track of ratings rendered under the Officer Evaluation Entry System using DA Form This unofficial worksheet should mirror information found on the profile report.
Raters must maintain a separate worksheet for each rank, for the ranks of WO1, CW2, CW3, CW4, 2LT, 1LT, CPT, MAJ, and LTC. The rater will have one combined profile for each component: Active, USAR, and ARNG. Promotable officers serving in positions authorized at the promotable grade are profiled at the higher grade by entering a rank with (P) in Part Ic on the OER.
This is an unofficial worksheet, which may be modified to meet individual needs. Instructions for columns on the worksheet follow:
1. On the correct rank TAB at bottom of sheet, enter the Ratee’s Name, Type, and Date of Evaluation.
2. Enter a one in the corresponding Box Checks (grey box) column. You see a credit of 3 in Proficient Box to allow Raters some flexibility on issuing EXCELS for initial reports.
3. Annotate the box check the Rater made on the OER in the Profile (green box) column by adding a “1” to the respective box and carry the balances down from above. For computing and profiling purposes Proficient, Capable, and Unsatisfactory box checks are totaled, then the number of EXCELS issued is divided by the total number of reports completed to get % EXCELS (must remain under 50%). The total column (in yellow) calculates the total number of Evals completed for that rank. Information should be verified with HRC (by reviewing EES periodically).
4. Enter date due to HRC (forecast 90 days after thru date of evaluation)
5. Enter the actual date completed at HRC (verify in EES).
6. Total EXCELS % calculates number of EXCELS at far right of the sheet (tan), which must maintain less than 50%.
POC: OER Profile Policy questions. Evaluation Systems Office, USA HRC, (502) (DSN: 983),

58. What’s a Misfire?
Definition: An OER with an Most Qualified box checked that receives a Highly Qualified DA label because the senior rater’s profile (50% or greater) does not support the Most Qualified rating.
Mechanism to Prevent: Senior Rater Contact Program. Once OERs are processed, a daily Potential Misfire roster ID’s problems. The SR is contacted and given options:
Submit Highly Qualified OER(s) to support Most Qualified / re-sequence
Withdraw / return potential misfire OER
Give authorization to change box check to Highly Qualified (SR should notify rated officer)
Officially misfire the report - What happens?
Rated officer receives a Highly Qualified DA Label.
Most Qualified counts on SR profile, further limiting SR ability to give future Most Qualified.
SR receives a Discipline Memo thru their rating chain.
Bottom line:
Know and manage your profile.
Management Support Division (HRC Ft Knox) will help and work with you.
SHOW SLIDE: WHAT IS A MISFIRE?
NOTE: Ask students if anyone has provided assistance to a senior rater regarding this topic.
As discussed on the previous slide, a documented misfire is an OER submitted to HQDA with a DA Form 67-10, Part VIa “Most Qualified” box check not supported by the senior rater profile for that grade will be labeled by HQDA as “Highly Qualified.”

59. Methods for Combating “Pooling”
Inclusion and specific discouraging of “pooling” via regulatory guidance.
Raises visibility of issue in a public forum which has not previously been done.
Still allows commanders and senior leaders to be responsible for designating rating schemes / approved one level up.
Intermediate Rater limited to specialty branches only.
Examples:
AR Para 2-5:
AS READ: "The Rater will normally be the immediate supervisor of....."
NOW READS: "The Rater will be the immediate supervisor of...“
Para 2-7
AS READ: "The SR will normally be the immediate supervisor of....."
NOW READS: "The SR will be the immediate supervisor of the Rater...”
Also, NOW READS: “Commanders will rate Commanders”
Also, NOW READS: “Rating Schemes will be approved one level up”
Added "notes" throughout regulation at applicable locations (i.e. Managing the Rating Chain, Roles and Responsibilities, etc.) that brings "Pooling" to light.
Evaluation Entry System (EES) will prompt the Senior Rater to validate that the form is accurate, and to attest that he/she is not promoting pooling.
SHOW SLIDE: METHODS FOR COMBATING “POOLING”
Pooling - Elevating the rating chain beyond the senior rater's ability to know the officer, in an attempt to provide an elevated assessment.
Feedback: Suggestions to combat “pooling” were solicited from 4 Stars only
Develop a directive/CSA Sends, which prohibits gaming system by pooling
Discourage pooling in regulation; requiring senior raters to brief their senior raters on their rating schemes
Talking points:
Pooling runs counter to the intent and spirit of the evaluation system.
Discouraging Pooling will enhance fairness and equity of the system.
Regulatory guidance as measure to combat pooling will raise visibility in a public forum.
There is no method to monitor or prevent pooling from the TOP down. Stronger rules about rating chain designation will enable the field to challenge rating chains through Commander’s Inquiry or IG investigation.
1. Make language "stronger" under rules of designating Rater and SR in AR 623-3, para 2-5 and para 2-7.
Para 2-5 AS READS: "The Rater will normally be the immediate supervisor of....."
WILL READ: "The Rater will be the immediate supervisor of..."
Para 2-7 AS READS: "The SR will normally be the immediate supervisor of....."
WILL READ: "The SR will be the immediate supervisor of the Rater...
2. Will add "note" throughout regulation at applicable locations (i.e. Managing the Rating Chain, Roles and Responsibilities, etc.) that brings "Pooling" to light.
Example note: "Pooling of Officers, or elevating the rating chain beyond the senior rater's ability to know the officer, in an attempt to provide an elevated assessment (i.e. Most Qualified) protection for a specific group, not only runs counter to the intent and spirit of the evaluation system but is unprofessional as well. Rating schemes established under this criteria erode Soldier's confidence in the fairness and equity of the Evaluation Reporting System and in leaders. Commanders at all levels must ensure rating chains correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of command and supervision within an organization. Subsequently, senior raters must evaluate and identify their best officers based on performance and potential regardless of the particular position they occupy."

61. SSG through 1SG/MSG (Organizational)
GROUP PRACTICAL EXERCISE
GROUP 1
SGT (Direct Level)
GROUP 2
SSG through 1SG/MSG (Organizational)
GROUP 3
CSM/SGM (Strategic)
Each group has 20 minutes to analyze the three different reports grade plate evaluations. Direct Level, Organizational, and Strategic.
Identify the differences between the old and new.
Each group has 10 minutes to present their analysis to the class.

62. Learning Objective Action: Review the Evaluation Reporting System
Condition: Senior HR Leaders in a classroom environment working individually and as a member of a small group, using doctrinal and administrative publications, practical exercises, case studies, personal experience, handouts, and discussion with an awareness of the Operational Environment (OE) variables and actors.
Standard:
1. Interpret the principles of the evaluation reporting system.
Examine the various components of the evaluation reporting system, including rating chains, counseling, types of reports, and redress program.
3. Compare evaluation reporting system responsibilities of the S-1 and HRC.
4. Review the use of the Evaluation Entry System (EES)